So, by that logic, they would be better off the way things were? There's very serious problems in South Africa, as there is in Africa as a whole. Mandela was responsible for solving the main one.

No that's YOUR logic.

For one to say that there cannot be a happy medium, that's a society without the racist policies of apartheid and without the incredibly high murder rate of Afrikaaners and the stealing of land is a copout. the ANC is no better than the white regime before him. Turning a blind eye to murderous violence is just as bad as sanctioning controlled violence.

Since 1994, more than 60000 (if not 60000, I apologize profusely and you can replace the number with 'a ****load' - these numbers come from various other sites - and they have increased since I wrote this article - Google 'muldersdrift') white South Africans have been murdered of which more than 4000 were commercial farmers. Exact figures are very hard to come by as the South African police fail to report most of the murders that take place. There is also no distinction between white and black victims in crime records.

The estimated number of whites sounds like a lot. But it's pretty much common knowledge around the world that there are 50+ murders PER DAY in SA. From 1994 to 2013, that's around 350 000 murders. So, why is it so hard to believe that 60 000 of those are black on white? It's about 17% of the total murders. But the numbers are not the main issue here. It's the NATURE of the crimes."

Few South Africans have the moral stature of retired archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who campaigned against apartheid and now laments the crime and inequality that plague the nation two decades after it cast off racist white rule.

“We can’t pretend we have remained at the same heights and that’s why I say please, for goodness’ sake, recover the spirit that made us great,” Tutu said. “Very simply, we are aware we’ve become one of the most violent societies. It’s not what we were, even under apartheid.”

This month, South Africa reopened a conversation over the extent to which the legacy of apartheid drives persistent imbalances in services and opportunities. Some argue that current leaders lean on the past to justify squandered chances to improve South Africa and even invoke the specter of apartheid for political gain.

The fresh discussion began with reported comments by National Planning Minister Trevor Manuel that South African officials should assume full responsibility for the nation’s problems and resist the temptation to continually blame apartheid.

Those include a faltering education system, an uneven record on providing basic services and allegations of corruption and cronyism that drain public faith in the government. The African National Congress, in power since the first all-race elections in 1994, has improved housing for many poor people and presides over a society that is immeasurably more tolerant than its predecessor. But the gulf between the wealthier white minority and the millions of blacks who can’t find work and live in shacks remains wide.

“While wanting to see change happening fast in every corner of the country, we are under no illusion that South Africa will automatically and comprehensively change in only 20 years. That is impossible,” President Jacob Zuma said this week. “The legacy of apartheid runs too deep and too far back for the democratic administration to reverse it in so short a period.”

{snip}

But the grim reference point of apartheid is fading among younger voters. The general elections in 2014 will mark the first time that the leading edge of the generation born after apartheid, known as the “born frees,” will be eligible to vote. An estimated 3 million young people, or 10 percent of the electorate, with no direct experience of apartheid will be able to vote.

A foundation chaired by F.W. de Klerk, the last apartheid-era president who negotiated a power transition with Mandela and later shared a Nobel Peace Prize with him, said in a statement Friday that Zuma’s references to apartheid are diverting attention from the need for effective policies.

“When President Zuma says that ‘we cannot stop blaming those who caused it,’ he is playing the very dangerous game of making whites the racial scapegoats for the manifest failures of his own government,” de Klerk’s foundation said.

{snip}

Tutu made his comments Thursday in a Cape Town ceremony to celebrate his receipt of the 2013 Templeton Prize, a $1.7 million award for spiritual work, the South African Press Association reported. He recalled that South Africa was “flavor of the month” at the time of the 1994 elections, as the world saw voters waiting patiently to cast the first ballots of their lives.

For one to say that there cannot be a happy medium, that's a society without the racist policies of apartheid and without the incredibly high murder rate of Afrikaaners and the stealing of land is a copout. the ANC is no better than the white regime before him. Turning a blind eye to murderous violence is just as bad as sanctioning controlled violence.

What would you suggest? Fully aware that South Africa is in an awful state but Mandela does deserve the credit for ending a horrible system. It's a third world country with third world problems, we think we have it tough but the scale of the issues there are alarming, there's no easy fix and just because things are bad there still doesnt mean that today is a sad day for the world as a great man has passed on.

What would you suggest? Fully aware that South Africa is in an awful state but Mandela does deserve the credit for ending a horrible system. It's a third world country with third world problems, we think we have it tough but the scale of the issues there are alarming, there's no easy fix and just because things are bad there still doesnt mean that today is a sad day for the world as a great man has passed on.

Yes it was. A majority being suppressed and treated like animals by an elite is not what happens in a first world country. Just because the elite there lived good, entitled lives didnt mean things were rosy, it just meant that those living below the poverty line were largely ignored.

When Mandela took over 23 million had no food or water, half the population was below the poverty line, a third of the country illiterate, the same number unemployed and the country was bankrupt. And thats before we ever get into the HIV epidemic. Not problems that would get fixed in 50 years, never mind 15.

Yes it was. A majority being suppressed and treated like animals by an elite is not what happens in a first world country. Just because the elite there lived good, entitled lives didnt mean things were rosy, it just meant that those living below the poverty line were largely ignored.

When Mandela took over 23 million had no food or water, half the population was below the poverty line, a third of the country illiterate, the same number unemployed and the country was bankrupt. And thats before we ever get into the HIV epidemic. Not problems that would get fixed in 50 years, never mind 15.

Interesting. I know of one country in the western hemisphere (hint, it's between Canada and Mexico) where this same statement could be applied.

"Lizette Lancaster, manager of the ISS crime and justice information hub, says there are many complex reasons South Africa has such high sexual offence rates. The armed struggle against apartheid and the violent backlash and suppression that followed have led to a normalisation of violence in South African society, she said. "Kids grew up seeing violence on their streets," she added."

"Lizette Lancaster, manager of the ISS crime and justice information hub, says there are many complex reasons South Africa has such high sexual offence rates. The armed struggle against apartheid and the violent backlash and suppression that followed have led to a normalisation of violence in South African society, she said. "Kids grew up seeing violence on their streets," she added."

I know I'm going to get blasted for this but I was always disappointed in Mandela. He refused to criticize Cuba's human rights record because Fidel Castro was a main benefactor of the ANC. Apparently racial oppression was a bad thing according to Mandela but political oppression was A-OK.